[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Studor13' timestamp='1320848227' post='12802']

"Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC on a Canon EOS 450D"



Shucks, I thought you were a Nikon shooter. (Love the specs on the new 1X, gotta say)

[/quote]

And this matters why?

For your information, I used Nikon already in the 80's. Still have more Nikon lenses than Canon lenses. Why the 1X <sic> is mentioned I do not know...

[quote name='Studor13' timestamp='1320848227' post='12802']

There are a number of reputable Nikon shooters out there apart from Bjorn.



DAVID RUETHER:

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html



Please have a look at this link below comparing the 18-35 to the 17-35 and a number of primes:

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm



They actually support PZ in some way! but he still says that it is a very decent lens.



Furthermore, David provides the number of lenses that were tested (in the fist link). This is what is missing in PZ. If you want to hand out one stars, you need to at least say that only one lens was tested and that they happen also to be exactly the same lens.



This will give the reader a more honest evaluation rather than making it seem that PZ's verdicts are set in stone.

[/quote]

I am sure that are MANY reputable Nikon shooters apart from Bjorn. I would not say Bjorn is reputable anyway.

You only list one Nikon "shooter" though, so I feel I am missing the point of that statement.



He does not "support" PZ in "some way", he actually finds that the corners are pretty much CRAP (gives a score of 2 out of 15 at 18mm (" soft (little detail showing)"). Which is exactly what Markus has been finding. And why he rates it so low (besides the other problems, as the quite strong barrel distortion and high CA). For the longer focal lengths 7, 8, 5 out of 15. That 5 out of 15 for 35mm.



As far as I can tell, these are his subjective findings (iow: not measured).